B RAJAGOPALA RAO Vs. U VYASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is third defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19th March, 1987in O.S. No. 117 of 1982 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge at Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada District. The suit was brought by one U. Vyasa Rao and later by an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., the 2nd plaintiff was brought on record as additional plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiffs alleged that the 1st plaintiff had entered into an agreement with defendants 1, 3 and 4 agreeing to purchase the property situated in Kasaba Bezar village and within the Fort Ward of Mangalore town comprised in R.S. No. 1679/A1 and 1725/2, T.S. No. 13/2 and 76/2 being the eastern portion measuring 49 cents in extent with tiled dwelling house, out-houses etc., with trees, rights of way and water more-fully described in the registered sale deed dated 17-1-1928 registered as document No. 93/78 before the Registrar of Sou'h Kanara. Defendants 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 executed the sale deed pursuant to the said agreement during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the relief in so far as they were coneerned was not pressed by the plaintiffs. The 3rd defendant who had taken a different stand in his written statement did not join in the execution though he was a signatory to the suit agreement to sell. He specifically took the stand that the suit agreement was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud; that plaintiff No. 1 was not willing to perform his part of the contract within the stipulated time; that the 3rd defendant was not bound to execute the deed of sale in respect of his 1/3rd share in the suit-schedule property because the time stipulated for execution of the sale deed was over. On such plea, the trial Court raised as many as 12 issues with all of which we need not concern ourselves but refer only to the following issues for a just disposal of this appeal :

(3.) In so far as Issue No. 6 extracted as above is concerned, no serious attempt was made by Sri Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant to dislodge the conclusion reached by the trial Court and the assertion in the written statement was unsupported by evidence. We, therefore, do not propose to deal with that finding except to mention that appellant-defendant No. 3 is not an ignorant person to be mis-led by the so called misrepresentation made by the 1st plaintiff about a law being passed which would enure to the benefit of tenants in the property just as the Land Reforms Act conferred the benefit on agricultural tenants. We are of the view that the stand taken by him in the Written Statement was more one of form than of substance. Not having supported such a stand by any evidence, the trial Court cannot be blamed if Issue No. 6 was answered in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court on Issue No. 6 must be sustained.